Observations on politics, news, culture and humor

McChrystal swapped for Petraeus

NYT coverage of McChrystal’s dismissal here. He’s been replaced by Iraq surge mastermind Gen. David Petraeus. I’m a bit surprised because it seems like Petraeus might have domestic political ambitions, which I imagine are fueled by the public’s “winner” association of his work in Iraq. Even in the rosiest Bill Kristol fantasies, I don’t know that Afghanistan is going to be a winner any time soon, so Petraeus will probably lose a bit of prestige. More after the jump.

Today Obama clarified what July 2011 means — somewhat. It means what Gen. Petraeus, his new commander, told the Senate he supports: not a “race for the exits,” but a “conditions-based,” open-ended transition. If that still sounds unclear, it’s because the policy itself is unclear. But by placing Petraeus at the helm, it means that 2012 will probably look more like right now, in terms of troop levels and U.S. troops fighting, than anything Biden prefers. […]

The strategy is supposed to undergo a review in December. Don’t expect that review to be so substantial. Petraeus will only be in theater for a few months. While he may not want to launch his own strategy review, he’ll surely want to keep his options open, and will be able to argue that the extraordinary conditions that put him back in charge of a war will necessitate that delay. Make no mistake: This is Obama intensifying his strategy. That’s the major change that has emerged after Gen. McChrystal’s unexpected self-immolation.

If that’s true, I guess Obama is more worried about giving up on a no-win war and being branded a Defeatocrat than he is about delivering the sort of common sense foreign policy he promised and that seemed to lead the Nobel committee to award him the peace prize this year. The presidency can’t be all about political calculations. I still really hope Obama will realize that what we are doing isn’t right and violates his conscience, which will lead him to pull the plug on the war, neocon pundits be damned, and then have the courage to make his case to the public.

You know what couldn’t have possibly helped McChrystal’s case? This earlier-in-the-day NYT report about King of Corruption Afghan president Hamid Karzai and his dope-baron brother Ahmed Wali Karzai doing all they could to keep McChrystal around. Money quote:

Rather than criticizing Mr. Karzai for what he had failed to do, he attempted to build him up as the country’s leader. He accompanied Mr. Karzai on trips to tribal meetings in different parts of the country, providing the kind of robust Western security that gives the president confidence.

These trips bring Mr. Karzai out of the palace, giving him a chance to show that he is trying to reach out to his people, and also helped him to hear the complaints of his people. While ultimately this is unlikely to be enough to shore up Mr. Karzai’s teetering political support or make him a popular figure, it has softened his image as a remote and isolated man who listens only to an inner circle.

Well, that explains a lot. Basically all any Western leader should be doing to Hamid Karzai is criticizing him. This man, who is really nothing more than a glorified mayor of Kabul, sits around in his palace counting his ill-gotten money, running cost-benefit analyses of throwing in his lot with the Taliban and plotting how he can steal elections. Building up a schmuck like Karzai probably does more harm than good for the nation-building effort since one of the few reasons why Afghans actually liked the Taliban, at least originally, was their anti-corruption stance.